The only way anyone could possibly claim that Obama's victory was a "landslide" and that he has a "mandate" from the majority of Americans is assuming the implied consent to the outcome of elections by those who refrain from voting.

Do you believe it is good and right and legitimate for 20% of the population of a country to use the government to force the other 80% to do what they want?

Disclaimers: I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I did vote in the general election. I did not vote for Romney. I did not vote for Obama. I would have posted this information regardless of the outcome of the election. I like cheese.

According to the standards put forth by the Republican party in 2004 as to what qualifies as a landslide or a mandate, Obama's victory is a bigger landslide and grants him a bigger mandate than Bush's.

* The Wall Street Journal: "The voters did [decide the election] -- including millions of conservative first-timers whom the exit polls and media missed -- emerging from the pews and exurban driveways to give President Bush what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term. ... Just because an election is close doesn't mean it isn't decisive. ... We do already know ... that Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive." [Wall Street Journal editorial, "The Bush Mandate," 11/4/04]

* William J. Bennett, conservative author and nationally syndicated radio host: "Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it." [National Review Online, "The Great Relearning," 11/3/04]

* CNN host Tucker Carlson, co-host of CNN's Crossfire: "[N]obody has done it since 1988. The president wins reelection with a majority of the vote. It is a mandate. What will he do with it now? [CNN, Crossfire, 11/3/04]

* The New York Sun: "[I]t was hard, at 3:35 a.m., when these words were written, to see much point to the quest that Senator Kerry has undertaken in Ohio other than to indulge a certain kind of bitterness, to poison American politics for the coming term, and to seek to dilute the extraordinary mandate Mr. Bush, if not yet in the Electoral College, has received among Americans from coast to coast." [The New York Sun editorial, "The Popular Vote," 11/3/04]

* Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst: "There's no doubt about it, this was a vote against, by the red-state folks who gave the victory to George Bush, it was a rejection of blue-state America. It was a rejection of their values, their attacks on the president. ... And the idea, it seems to me, that somehow the folks who won should now surrender part of whatever mandate they have to the folks who lost -- I can tell you, what we're hearing on this panel, people out there in red-state America are finding it very offensive." [MSNBC, Hardball with Chris Matthews, 11/3/04]

* William Kristol, Weekly Standard executive editor: "The hair-pullers and teeth-gnashers won't like it, of course, but we're nevertheless inclined to call this a Mandate. Indeed, in one sense, we think it an even larger and clearer mandate than those won in the landslide reelection campaigns of Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996." [The Weekly Standard, "Misunderestimated," 11/15/04 issue]

Mainstream media outlets followed conservatives' lead in trumpeting Bush's narrow victory as a mandate:

* Tony Karon, TIME magazine columnist and senior editor: "George W. Bush took the reins of power with the confidence and certainty of one who had carried a landslide mandate to implement his own agenda. This time, of course, his claim of a popular mandate is incontrovertible. His party has strengthened its grip on both branches of the legislature, and freed of any first-term restraints that might be thrown up by reelection concerns, President George W. Bush is well positioned to even more vigorously pursue his agenda." [TIME, "Victorious Bush Reaches Out," 11/3/04]

* Dan Chapman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution global economics and business reporter: "Bush, buoyed by a popular mandate and a more Republican Congress, will probably receive the financial and military wherewithal to fight the insurgency and rebuild Iraq." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Bush gets voters' nod on Iraq, but outlook risky," 11/4/04]

* Keith Miller, NBC News correspondent: "Bush, who won by more than three and a half million votes, has a solid mandate that will force the attention of America's enemies and allies." [NBC Nightly News, 11/3/04]

* Rafael Lorente, Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) Washington bureau: "Americans not only gave President Bush a mandate, they also gave him the necessary tools in the form of more Republican House and Senate colleagues to push through his conservative agenda." [Sun-Sentinel, "Bush now has the tools to energize his priority programs," 11/4/04, syndicated by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services]

* Doyle McManus and Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times staff writers: "Four years ago, George W. Bush won his first term with fewer votes than his opponent, but governed as if the nation had granted him a clear mandate to pursue conservative policies. This time, Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51% of the vote, which made him the first presidential candidate to win a clear majority since 1988 -- a point Bush aides made repeatedly Wednesday." [Los Angeles Times, "Majority Win Could Make Second Term More Partisan," 11/4/04]

Mandates all around for Bush from the conservative and mainstream media. Obama's victory was larger than Bush's in 2004. Now the standard isn't good enough for you conservatives? Don't like the tables being turned and your words being used against you?

TOO FUCKING BAD!

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence, who actually got to vote in the first US presidential election? White, male property owners. Less than 1.3% of the population did vote.
Everyone had the right to vote in the 2012 election. That's the important thing. Obama's mandate is secure.

You raise an excellent point, but it doesn't invalidate mine.

Do you believe it is good and right and legitimate for 20% of the population of a country to claim a mandate to use the government to force the other 80% to do what they want?

Despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence, who actually got to vote in the first US presidential election? White, male property owners. Less than 1.3% of the population did vote.
Everyone had the right to vote in the 2012 election. That's the important thing. Obama's mandate is secure.

You raise an excellent point, but it doesn't invalidate mine.

Do you believe it is good and right and legitimate for 20% of the population of a country to claim a mandate to use the government to force the other 80% to do what they want?

It doesn't "sound" legitimate when you put it like that, but, that misses the point of the process. Firstly, 75 million are not of voting age or are otherwise ineligible, so that leaves the voting population, and they all have the chance to vote if they care about the outcome. If they choose not to vote then there is not much that can be done to take their wishes into account, and they are presumed ambivalent. That's how democracy works, and if 20% of the population carries the vote, then yes - they get to claim the mandate.

And I wonder if you would you be asking that question if the Republicans had won the Presidential election. Because, had they done so, they would, also legitimately, be claiming a mandate - they made that clear before the election.

According to the standards put forth by the Republican party in 2004 as to what qualifies as a landslide or a mandate, Obama's victory is a bigger landslide and grants him a bigger mandate than Bush's.

Mandates all around for Bush from the conservative and mainstream media. Obama's victory was larger than Bush's in 2004. Now the standard isn't good enough for you conservatives? Don't like the tables being turned and your words being used against you?

TOO FUCKING BAD!

Well done BR.

I saw the title of the thread and my first thought was if this were the other way around they would be thumping their drums and saying they had a mandate to change the world.

It is stunning how the Right has a special set of rules that applies only to its own little universe. The party of personal responsibility wants to lay blame everywhere and limit the size of the loss. They are consistent, however; all for us, nothing for anybody else. Slightly more than half the country is stupid, urban dwelling, not traditional America.

It is nauseating. The world is laughing, and cringing.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

I saw the title of the thread and my first thought was if this were the other way around they would be thumping their drums and saying they had a mandate to change the world.

It is stunning how the Right has a special set of rules that applies only to its own little universe. The party of personal responsibility wants to lay blame everywhere and limit the size of the loss. They are consistent, however; all for us, nothing for anybody else. Slightly more than half the country is stupid, urban dwelling, not traditional America.

Originally posted by rokthere's that phrase again, and i feel like i have been bludgeoned with it by both sides in this campaign. you're a smart enough guy, you do realize that a hell of a lot of people didn't reject it, right?

Your just being semantical. Bush and the Republicans got a clear majority. 51% of the vote in a national election is a mandate.

"Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign--a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate." - Obama commenting on the 2004 election results.

"Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign--a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate." - Obama commenting on the 2004 election results.

This is where Jon Stewart asks: "What's different now?" then flashes a picture of Obama being sworn in, and says: "Ahhh...before you had a little, now you have a lot."

I'm not sure that Obama's quote is being ignored. There is a straw man lurking here, namely that Obama is currently claiming an "irrefutable mandate". He has a mandate of some kind because he won the election, as SDW quite correctly pointed out in 2004 re. Bush. He has also expressed willingness to compromise over tax reform and spending - two very important issues to the Republicans. I'm not sure that Obama has done anything himself (yet) to contradict his 2004 comment. We'll see if he remains consistent as things progress.

There's a bug in the forums. I did quote you. You had this to say in 2004, and it cannot be put into any more context:

Quote (by SDW): "Bush and the Republicans got a clear majority. 51% of the vote in a national election is a mandate."

I'm not saying you made up the quote. But how can there be no additional context? Even if that was the entire post, what was the surrounding discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry

I'm not sure that Obama's quote is being ignored. There is a straw man lurking here, namely that Obama is currently claiming an "irrefutable mandate". He has a mandate of some kind because he won the election, as SDW quite correctly pointed out in 2004 re. Bush. He has also expressed willingness to compromise over tax reform and spending - two very important issues to the Republicans. I'm not sure that Obama has done anything himself (yet) to contradict his 2004 comment. We'll see if he remains consistent as things progress.

He's not willing to compromise. He stated that tax rate hikes have to be part of the deal, and that the "American people chose my approach." You're listening to his rhetoric and not looking at his actions. The same type of thing happened in 2011, when the two sides were close to deal. At the last moment, Obama ignored what the two sides had already agreed to in principle at their last meeting, instead going "whole hog" for tax increases. Why? Because he thought he had the GOP by the balls. This is not a man who compromises, nor is the party leadership inclined to compromise. Look at Obamacare. They rammed it down the throats of the GOP despite leadership offering a host of other ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Mittens claimed once that he needed 50.1% of the vote. That's 50.1%.

I'll bet he and the Right would have declared that he had a mandate from God.

Ah, the speculative straw man. A favorite of yours.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm not sure that Obama's quote is being ignored. There is a straw man lurking here, namely that Obama is currently claiming an "irrefutable mandate". He has a mandate of some kind because he won the election, as SDW quite correctly pointed out in 2004 re. Bush. He has also expressed willingness to compromise over tax reform and spending - two very important issues to the Republicans. I'm not sure that Obama has done anything himself (yet) to contradict his 2004 comment. We'll see if he remains consistent as things progress.

He's not willing to compromise. He stated that tax rate hikes have to be part of the deal, and that the "American people chose my approach." You're listening to his rhetoric and not looking at his actions. The same type of thing happened in 2011, when the two sides were close to deal. At the last moment, Obama ignored what the two sides had already agreed to in principle at their last meeting, instead going "whole hog" for tax increases. Why? Because he thought he had the GOP by the balls. This is not a man who compromises, nor is the party leadership inclined to compromise. Look at Obamacare. They rammed it down the throats of the GOP despite leadership offering a host of other ideas.

Oh, I see. Obama's has to be willing to compromise on everything despite winning the election, whereas the Republicans, who lost, don't have to do that? Republicans saying that they will not compromise on spending cuts, but will compromise on tax increases is splendidly bi-partisan, while Obama saying that he will not compromise on tax increases but will compromise on spending cuts is unacceptable.

Oh, I see. Obama's has to be willing to compromise on everything despite winning the election, whereas the Republicans, who lost, don't have to do that? Republicans saying that they will not compromise on spending cuts, but will compromise on tax increases is splendidly bi-partisan, while Obama saying that he will not compromise on tax increases but will compromise on spending cuts is unacceptable.

I'd love if you'd stop using strawmen. I really would.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Oh, I see. Obama's has to be willing to compromise on everything despite winning the election, whereas the Republicans, who lost, don't have to do that? Republicans saying that they will not compromise on spending cuts, but will compromise on tax increases is splendidly bi-partisan, while Obama saying that he will not compromise on tax increases but will compromise on spending cuts is unacceptable.

I'd love if you'd stop using strawmen. I really would.

Then please explain what you believe the straw man in my argument to be. Because I really don't see one, you haven't pointed one out, and I suspect it's not there. I summarized your argument accurately.